ArticleJournal of Korean Academy of Nursing2020
[Nurses and Nursing Students' Recognition of Good Instruction].
Article in Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study was to identify and assess from nursing students and nurses in the clinical field what constitute good instruction, through the review of nursing students' opinions and clinical field demands.
methodsThe study design was used Creswell's exploratory sequential design by collecting and analyzing qualitative data obtained from interviews and then analysis of quantitative data. The participations were 79 seniors in nursing schools and 85 nurses with less than three years of clinical experience. The data were collected through individual interviews and analyzed based on Elo and Kyngäs's content analysis method. The quantitative data were collected using the questionnaire developed based on qualitative results and analyzed by SPSS 23.0 program and Importance Performance Analysis (IPA).
resultsThe results showed that IPA extracted seven items with high importance but low satisfaction: "nursing fads and trends," "teacher-learner communication and reflection," "materials used in clinical settings such as monitoring results and test results," "special presentations by experienced practitioners," "instruction assures learners' comprehension," "accurate and detailed evaluation standards" and "feedback on homework and exam."
conclusionThe factors comprising good instruction were verified, and the necessity for additional efforts to improve high importance and low performance factors was noted. Therefore, this study can serve as a guide for nursing education facilities and educators in developing of a thorough education system with excellent instruction designed to achieve an ideal nursing education.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32131076What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.